Culture The Dream of Streaming Is Dead - Bundles are back.

By Jacob Stern
MAY 16, 2024, 5:27 PM ET

1715956906991.png
Illustration by The Atlantic. Source: Getty.

Remember when streaming was supposed to let us watch whatever we want, whenever we want, for a sliver of the cost of cable? Well, so much for that. In recent years, streaming has gotten confusing and expensive as more services than ever are vying for eyeballs. It has done the impossible: made people miss the good old-fashioned cable bundle.

Now the bundles are back. Last week, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery announced that, starting this summer, they will offer a streaming bundle of Disney+, Hulu, and Max. Then, on Tuesday, Comcast said that next month it will introduce a streaming bundle of its own, packaging Peacock, Apple TV+, and Netflix. This bundle, called StreamSaver, will be available only to Comcast’s broadband, mobile, and TV customers. Some smaller mini-bundles already exist, but for the most part, the streaming wars had become a battle royale—no alliances, everyone for themselves. Now the combatants have aligned in two blocs, sort of like the Avengers versus the Justice League—except that, confusingly, Marvel movies (Disney) and DC movies (Max) are now part of the same bloc.

It’s not cable, but it’s not not cable either. Streaming hasn’t quite come full circle, but it’s three-quarters of the way around. These bundles are ending an entire era of streaming, with its unsatisfying free-for-all of services. This new era may well be better than the one before it. But the dream of streaming as a cheaper, better version of cable is dead.

For a while, it did actually exist. When Netflix launched its streaming service back in 2007, the company pretty much dominated the market without much serious competition. You could watch basically everything with no ads, and for less than $10 a month. Then, beginning at the tail end of the 2010s, all of the big legacy entertainment companies tried to get in on the action. “For much of the past four years, the entertainment industry spent money like drunken sailors to fight the first salvos of the streaming wars,” the media-industry analyst Michael Nathanson wrote in November. The current streaming landscape, despite offering unprecedented abundance, is a nightmare to navigate. To watch entertainment now requires wading through a frustrating array of streaming services: Netflix, Prime Video, and Hulu, yes, but also Peacock, Paramount+, AMC+, and others.

But this hasn’t brought in the types of profits that companies hoped for. Last year, Disney, Comcast, and Paramount collectively lost several billion dollars on streaming. Making and licensing shows and movies, it turns out, is not cheap. And people are willing to pay for only so many streaming subscriptions. Even when the new services managed to attract subscribers, they weren’t able to hold on to them; in industry parlance, churn was too high. Streaming services have tried to recoup their losses by raising prices, creating ad tiers, and cracking down on password sharing.

Going it alone hasn’t worked, so now they’re teaming up. Neither mega-bundle has announced details about costs, but Comcast’s StreamSaver will be sold “at a vastly reduced price” relative to individually subscribing to all three services, the company’s CEO, Brian Roberts, said during the announcement this week. Packaged together and sold at a discount, each streaming service will make less per subscription, but perhaps collectively they will be more competitive and hold on to more of their subscribers. That’s the idea, anyway.

For consumers, these bundles are probably a good thing. There’s a reason so many people rejoiced at the prospect of cutting the cord—but cable was simple. With streaming, keeping track of all your accounts and all your passwords and where to watch whatever you want to watch—that is not simple. And then, just when you think you’ve got it all figured out, one of the services you subscribe to informs you that you’ll have to shell out for the premium tier if you want to watch a certain show or movie. If you can convert three separate subscriptions into a single cheaper one, as the new deals will seemingly allow some people to do, that’s a win.

The new bundles don’t exactly restore order and sanity. The array of overlapping options is itself confusing. In addition to the Disney+/Hulu/Max bundle, there is also a Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle, which does not include Max. But if you really want to watch sports, you’ll presumably go for the ESPN/Fox/Warner Bros. Discovery bundle, named Venu Sports. And if you’re a Verizon myPlan customer, you can subscribe to a Netflix/Max bundle—even though those two services are part of opposing three-service bundles, as announced over the past two weeks. Making matters even more complicated, some of the bundlers are already themselves bundles. Disney owns Hulu and ESPN. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN and Max. Bundles are bundling with bundles.

Even more bundles are likely in the works, and they may save people some money. But they will not resolve the fundamental tension in what people want out of cable, or streaming, or whatever it is that serves them up stuff to watch. On the one hand, we like having everything in one place. On the other, we don’t like paying a lot of money for things we don’t use. Cable satisfied the former desire but not the latter. Streaming, after the fleeting honeymoon period when you could find almost anything on Netflix, satisfied the latter but not the former. With the new bundles, the streamers are trying to strike a balance between the total consolidation of cable and the total chaos of streaming. That new balance may well be superior to the status quo, but the trade-off between having things in one place and paying for things you don’t need will remain. As long as it does, we’ll never feel totally satisfied.

Source (Archive)
 
At this point you can save a shit ton of money and avoid all the slop on streaming services by using any of the myriads of "FAST" sites like Pluto or Tubi for background noise and pirating individual shows/buying the DVDs. There's also Philo if you want a few cable channels without spending an arm or a leg; $25 a month is a fuck of a lot better than paying over $70 for shit like YouTube TV.
YoutubeTV was a fair deal when it started. $50 a month for the popular cable channels and locals. They don’t care about sharing passwords either if the other people are in the same city. I canceled when it crept up to almost $80 per month.
 
It's all garbage.

Oh, the promised land does exist. I use a pirate site that has every show from every streaming service that exists, with only a 3-4 days delay from when something gets released. It's insanely easy to navigate by season or genre, and the unified search works great.

The problem is...

...it's all garbage. I doomscroll through new releases and wind up watching nothing. You have no idea how bad streaming is until you see the consolidated output of every service in one place and get overwhelmed with disinterest. I think I've watched 3 shows in the past 5 years, and some of those were morbid curiosity to see why everyone is hating it. I usually end up picking a 20+ year old movie instead.

I'm not going to take a monthly subscription for 1 show a year. If a good one did drop, I couldn't justify the hassle of signup just to keep it for a month to watch. Even if I wanted to "support the artist" (lmao) by getting it legally, we've all seen these corporations ignore audience signals like this to do whatever they want.
Yea, my relatives are deciding to cancel some of their subscriptions. Poor quality shows, on top of a lot of these shows either being cancelled after one or two seasons, or another season taking three years to release, makes it not worth it. I find myself rewatching shows like The Next Generation and Andromeda again.
At this point you can save a shit ton of money and avoid all the slop on streaming services by using any of the myriads of "FAST" sites like Pluto or Tubi for background noise and pirating individual shows/buying the DVDs. There's also Philo if you want a few cable channels without spending an arm or a leg; $25 a month is a fuck of a lot better than paying over $70 for shit like YouTube TV.
Freevee is another option.
 
It is fucking retarded to expect people to subscribe to numerous services just to watch one or two shows. They’d spend hundreds of millions getting exclusive rights to Friends for a year and never asked themselves what people would watch after they binged through Friends.

Pirating or just buying box sets of shows you like is the only way to go. That way they can’t censor “problematic” scenes or entire episodes of shows where they’ll claim that you don’t actually own the content so fuck you, pal. Well, if we don’t actually own the content, then I don’t really feel all that bad streaming it for free elsewhere. Plus paying streaming fees leads to more nigger-laden diversity slop so it feels more ethical to pirate than to pay.
The only series I say don't even bother buying the boxset for is Daria, all the original, licensed music was removed because Viacom/Paramount are cheap bastards. Thankfully, some kind souls put the licensed music back in, all for free, and offer a torrent of the series.
 
Cable with extra steps and several times the price was never going to work anyway....
 
disney + has yet to be profitable. they found out that the logistics of a streaming platform costs oodles of money.
Netflix is the only "profitable" streaming service so far. Yet it has $14 billion in debt. And they've suspended debt payments and royalties a few times to post a 'profitable' quarter. So likely they are not really making any money either. It's one big race to the bottom.
 
And they've suspended debt payments and royalties a few times to post a 'profitable' quarter.
What, you can just choose to ignore your debts and liabilities so that your company appears more profitable than it actually is to secure funding?

Wow, the American economy is even faker and gayer than I thought it was.
 
But this hasn’t brought in the types of profits that companies hoped for. Last year, Disney, Comcast, and Paramount collectively lost several billion dollars on streaming. Making and licensing shows and movies, it turns out, is not cheap. And people are willing to pay for only so many streaming subscriptions. Even when the new services managed to attract subscribers, they weren’t able to hold on to them; in industry parlance, churn was too high. Streaming services have tried to recoup their losses by raising prices, creating ad tiers, and cracking down on password sharing.
Any high school graduate could have told you that before you ever started. Now they sit here playing into the sunk cost fallacy, refusing to just license their shit to hulu or netflix, sit back, and collect. They LITERALLY fucked up free money.
 
What, you can just choose to ignore your debts and liabilities so that your company appears more profitable than it actually is to secure funding?

Wow, the American economy is even faker and gayer than I thought it was.
Per George Lucas, the first star wars movie has never made a profit. You know, that movie that was #1 at the box office for 40 some weeks, and then was #1 for a few more weeks a couple years later, and then #1 for a month in 1999, and sold a bajillion VHS/DVD/laserdisc. Just a total loss for the studio.
 
Per George Lucas, the first star wars movie has never made a profit. You know, that movie that was #1 at the box office for 40 some weeks, and then was #1 for a few more weeks a couple years later, and then #1 for a month in 1999, and sold a bajillion VHS/DVD/laserdisc. Just a total loss for the studio.
there's jew math with movies. i think actor's contracts have royalties based on gross and net and the line is only suckers take net because no movie makes any money what so ever.
 
They are their own worst enemy and they will never learn.
1716192215544.png

Literally the only TV show I've watched so far this year was the Smiling Friends.
Literally nothing else seems interesting to me.
 
It's a bold move to raise prices when television hasn't stopped going further and further down hill. I rarely even pirate these days. At the price of free I rarely find anything worth watching. I couldn't fathom paying for the shit.
I have been researching or rewatching shows from 2000-2010. Some shows I didn't watch or some shows I did watch but rewatching. Recently Psyche has caught my eye and goddamn it's so delightful. I can't say the same with the new shows nowadays. Either too serious or too gay. Nothing in between. Ted Lasso is gay as fuck I couldn't make it pass 1 season.

Sure, there are some good shows but nothing witty or smart. Just lame ass bullshit repackaged in DEI.

Anyway, tons of good tv shows from 2000-2010. Golden age of tv. It pairs great with iptorrent, hard drive, and the glorious 75inch tv with extreme resolution.
 
I have been researching or rewatching shows from 2000-2010. Some shows I didn't watch or some shows I did watch but rewatching. Recently Psyche has caught my eye and goddamn it's so delightful. I can't say the same with the new shows nowadays. Either too serious or too gay. Nothing in between. Ted Lasso is gay as fuck I couldn't make it pass 1 season.

Sure, there are some good shows but nothing witty or smart. Just lame ass bullshit repackaged in DEI.

Anyway, tons of good tv shows from 2000-2010. Golden age of tv. It pairs great with iptorrent, hard drive, and the glorious 75inch tv with extreme resolution.
I've barely been paying attention to television for so long that I didn't even find out Young Sheldon ended until like the day of.
 
Heh, I thought they were talking about streamers, the overload of Twitch and how everyone and their dog has a vtuber avatar now. There was no such thing as a "Streaming dream", everyone that isn't Netflix were always DOA.
No one likes Disney or HBO that much.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo